America shouts a collective "Yes" for high-speed rail

Last week we announced the Obama Administration's high-speed and inter-city passenger rail grants. The media has gone through the awards and regional rail plans for using those awards productively, and I am pleased by the enthusiastic and positive response from all over the U.S.

America has embraced high-speed rail.

Over the past few days, I’ve heard transportation experts around the country collectively exhaling after waiting nearly a year to see how we evaluated the various proposals. State leaders are excited about what this means for their economic future. And the public is thrilled to see the U.S. move full speed ahead toward a 21st century transportation infrastructure that will rival systems in Europe and Asia.

"YES," they seemed to all affirm as they finally stopped holding their breath. "It's HERE."

"Yes," said Eugene Conti, head of North Carolina's Department of Transportation and Petra Todorovich, director of America 2050. Said Conti:

"This historic day is the culmination of more than a decade of work by state DOTs across the country. States stand ready to plan, build, and deliver. These projects represent the building blocks of our national intercity rail system. They will create good jobs and reinvigorate domestic manufacturing in the U.S."

"Yes," said Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Jay Nixon of Missouri and Jim Doyle of Wisconsin and governors of other states that had submitted plans demonstrating substantial planning and state financial support. "You really can't underestimate how extraordinary this moment is," said Nixon. "This is a transformative step."

"Yes," said state Reps. Terri Austin of Indiana and Connie Pillich of Ohio and other legislators of those states who had bravely committed themselves to voting in favor of a new day for passenger rail in this country. Rep. Pillich focused on economic development: “Sharonville will see fantastic growth as the first stop in the Cincinnati area. It will become the gateway to Cincinnati.”

"Yes," said downtown-to-downtown business travelers whose in-transit time can be spent more productively in the seat of a train than behind the wheel of a car. "You can’t just look at the time alone," said Ken Prendergast of All Aboard Ohio, "because people are more relaxed and can be more productive on a train.”

"Yes," said Phineas Baxterall of US PIRG and Howard Learner of the Environmental Law and Policy Center and other environmental advocates who want to see anticipated growth in automobile carbon emissions curbed by keeping cars off the road. As the editorial board at the San Francisco Chronicle put it:

"A high-speed rail system for a growing state with already overstressed transportation systems and a commitment to reduce the carbon emissions that are threatening the health of the planet for our children and grandchildren certainly qualifies as a sound long-term investment."

"Yes," said entrepreneurs like Doc Dockery of Lakeland, Florida, who see opportunities for economic development around increasingly active downtown stations and along proposed new corridors. "This is a great day," said the 76-year old businessman who has championed rail efforts in Florida for many years.

"Yes," said the Dallas Morning News--even though Texas was awarded a relatively small grant.

But there was one surprisingly ill-informed “No.”

I was disappointed to see the Washington Post’s editorial yesterday, which pointed to a low-value project that did NOT receive ANY funding! And also to a project they like--the Northeast Corridor--that they claim was given short-shrift.

First, the last time a comprehensive environmental study was done on the corridor was over 30 years ago; any attempt to make major service improvements-–something the Administration absolutely supports--will require compliance with National Environmental Policy Act before significant federal investment can be made.  Indeed, the Federal Railroad Administration has been working with the states and Amtrak to develop such a comprehensive plan, and looks forward to helping the nine corridor states and DC work through their local priorities to arrive at a consensus vision for investing in high speed rail.

Second, anyone who knows anything about rail in this country knows that no single segment has claimed a greater share of our limited passenger rail investment in the last 30 years than the Northeast Corridor. The Post might have noted this. In 2009 alone, the Federal Railroad Administration provided over $1 billion to Amtrak to make long overdue improvements to bridges, track and signal systems, just to keep the current services running safely and reliably.  While much more is needed, there is a practical limit to how much can be spent at one time without taking tracks out of service during hours when critical commuter and Amtrak services must operate. 

The Washington Post is not alone in media around the country expressing frustration that their rail corridors didn’t get most or all of the money--an understandable view of the start of a major new transportation program.  Indeed, the outcry from those whose corridors did not receive funding this round is a good indication of America's desire for enhanced passenger rail service. But to take it a step further and claim that because one corridor didn’t get all of the funding, politics must have driven the decisions, is not only unfounded but harmful to the program.

For an example with a broader perspective, look again at the Dallas Morning News. Pointing to the state of Florida, with a Republican Governor and a GOP-controlled legislature, the Morning News recognized that Texas was bypassed for merit, not politics. There's no sour grapes there, only the reasonable demand that "Texas should get back into the competition."

And look at The Oregonian whose editorial board also took the long view although Oregon itself did not receive a major award:

"The money will reinvent the Portland-Seattle rail link, virtually all of it in Washington, and support more trains that will far exceed their current lumbering speeds .Even though we can't quite hear the cash register ring, this is a very good thing."

The reality is that States submitted $57 billion in projects competing for the $8 billion in available funding.  The President has been steadfast in his direction to the Department of Transportation that we make merit-based investments as a downpayment on a new high-speed rail program for America.  Most observers agree that $8 billion alone will not transform travel overnight, but that our first round of strategic investments can create and save real jobs in the near term while laying the foundation for a transformational new transportation program.

The states that were most successful were the states that have been carefully planning and investing significant state resources in passenger rail for the past decade: California, Wisconsin, Illinois and North Carolina.  Florida is a noted exception as far as state investment, but the state has been doing good planning for several years. 

The reality is that the Northeast Corridor states have been standing on the sidelines with regard to high-speed rail; they don't have a consensus plan for improving the high-speed service. Awarding a major grant to a set of states without a plan would be ill-advised.

Look, this Administration made good on its word by awarding grants based on merit.

And with President Obama's announcement of these strategic grants, the public and legislators and transportation experts understand for the first time that, "Yes; American high-speed rail is happening."

Comments

[Darren Turner]

Considering that air travel is getting to be more and more of a time consuming hassle at airports it's high time to implement a good rail system.

In the hours wasted on the ground at airports we could travel considerable distances with efficient ground transport - and with a smaller emissions footprint.

Would there be any good reason to use air for short-haul trips if there was a good alternative?

[Ken Orski, Editor, Innovation NewsBriefs]

While high-speed rail advocates have been disappointed by the Administration’s selections because few of the projects offer the promise of true high-speed service — even the Florida project is not expected to attain European-like high speeds according to Rep. John Mica (R-FL)— the Administration’s decision to fund upgrades of rail infrastructure in as many as 13 different rail corridors make good sense, and not just politically but also policywise.

True "high speed" service (as that term is used in Europe and the Far East, i.e. top speeds of 150 mph and higher) would require separating freight and passenger traffic and that means building entirely new rail infrastructure in dedicated rights-of-way— something that is clearly not within the scope of a $8 billion program. The final price tag for California’s complete high-speed rail system could reach $60 to $80 billion and a recent Government Accountability Office report cites a range of construction costs for high-speed rail from $22 million/mile to $132 million/mile. Setting one’s sights on dedicated high-speed lines makes the $8 billion look like a drop in the bucket.

In the meantime, with railroads expected to assume an ever growing share of intercity freight transport, upgrading infrastructure in existing rail corridors has become an urgent necessity. Since nearly all of Amtrak’s passenger trains run on rail lines owned by freight railroads, such improvements will also benefit passenger traffic. In most corridors, track and signaling upgrades on existing shared passenger/freight lines would permit raising speeds to 90-100 mph from today’s 60-80 mph, according to railroad experts.

To be sure, a strong case can be made that true high-speed rail service will eventually be necessary between major city-pairs separated by less than 300 miles to relieve unacceptable levels of highway and air traffic congestion. But building a national network of dedicated high-speed rail lines from scratch will require decades of a sustained national commitment, spanning many administrations. There is no assurance that future presidents and future Congresses will share President Obama’s and Secretary LaHood’s enthusiasm for high-speed rail. Hence, whether the $8 billion is a first modest down payment on a multi-generational commitment to create a national high-speed rail system, or whether it is simply a commendable one-time policy initiative that will substantially benefit freight railroads but probably only marginally improve passenger rail service, only the future will tell.

Respectfully,
Ken Orski, Editor
Innovation NewsBriefs

[Larry Hagemann]

This effort is to be applauded, but when I see the trains running thru the RTP crossings, they do appear to be mostly empty. What does it take to get people to ride the trains? Maybe convenience at each end and a schedule that is more reasonable. $545 million will be of great help in getting some neglected rail aspects upgraded and improved. But it is a far, far cry from the needed money to bring the network up to a European standard.

[Rob]

A collective "YES" to HSR is, at the same time, a collective "NO" to continued over-reliance on urban highways. Americans want and need access to transit and the jobs it creates, both during construction and on a sustained basis. This is an exciting time in the federal transportation policy arena and the stakes for future generations are high.

[Martin A. Soholt]

Thank you for pointing out the Northeast Corridor state's lack of $$$ support. While the Northeast Corridor has enjoyed the lion's share of funding and service for decades, all of the states outside of this area have been expected to contribute local funds to establish corridor service. All I've ever heard from Northeast states in the press is complaints about how high speed trains are a danger to their children and that the Federal Government should further spend money on ROW fences to protect their citizens from trespassing on this private ROW property. While the rest of us are expected to ante up, it appears the citizens of the Northeast Corridor are trying to further hamper efficient progress.

[Victor]

This is one area where as a country we are behind much of Europe and Even Asia. However, it shouldn't be mandated from the federal government, states should vote on it such as we had here in Florida.

[jmj4trains]

Mr. LaHood,

I don't understand how this is a start towards a system that will rival those of Europe and Asia. Except for FL and CA, none of the projects that are funded are for service above 110mph. That doesn't even come close to the systems that are in other countries now; and by the time the US has our system built, Europe and Asia will be even faster.

The awards that have been announced include projects in Wisconsin, Maine, and Iowa... along routes that were not designated as corridors in the original Vision for HSR that was released in April.

The route in Iowa is only a small segment of the California Zephyr line... but that isn't a high speed route, and it is completely outside of the scope of what this money was promised it would go towards. A vasy majority of the funds that were awarded are really just subsidies for the freight rail companies.

In his announcement, Obama called said "make no small plans". But the plans laid out here by the DOT are very small plans, indeed.

[Pro-transit Georgian]

Dear Secretary LaHood,

I am heartened by the Obama administration's willingness to invest in rail transit and look forward to seeing the winning projects come alive.

As a resident of the state of Georgia, I particularly would like to thank you for publicly letting our state know that it needs to "get its act together." For far too long, Georgia's state politicians have dithered and waffled on the topic of rail transit of all forms -- intercity, intracity, commmuter rail -- even to the point of leaving upwards of $100 million in federal funds designated for rail development sitting around for years, unused and unspent, in the bank!

The extremely cozy relationship between Georgia's politicians and the state's road builders explains a lot. All it took was an eleventh-hour phone call last year from the state's top road builder to our Lt. Governor to kill a state bill that would have allowed regions within Georgia to band together to raise badly needed funds for transit initiatives. (For details, please see the following article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution from May 2009: http://bit.ly/abOus4 )

But enough about the past. Looking forward, I'd like to ask you to please keep up the pressure on Georgia's state leadership. Millions of Georgians want to see high speed rail come to our state, and we look forward to a day when we can finally elect some forward thinking politicians with the courage and vision to make the necessary investment.

You awarded Georgia $750,000 to fund rail transit studies... Please help us make sure this award gets used for its intended purpose, and that it doesn't just sit around in the bank year after year!